Ex Parte Geffin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2017

13220613 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2017)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/220,613 08/29/2011 Steven Geffin 2540-1217 2142
42624 7590 07/31/2017
DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
8300 Greensboro Dr, Suite 500
McLean, VA 22102
EXAMINER
KHAN, IFTEKHAR A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2017 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEVEN GEFFIN, ANDRES FOLLECO, and
MICHAEL RANSOM

___________

Appeal 2017-004224
Application 13/220,613
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, BETH Z. SHAW, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2017-004224
Application 13/220,613

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1–36, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to modelling the power consumption of
devices in real-time, allowing for prediction and classification of power and
resource use. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method in a data processing system for predicting
future power consumption in computing systems, comprising:
receiving an indication of one or more computing devices to
predict power for;
receiving one or more input parameters of the one or more
computing devices, input by a user;
automatically generating a prediction of the power consumption
of the one or more computing devices over a future time interval using
the one or more received input parameters of the one or more
computing devices; and
transmitting the generated prediction.

Claims 1–36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Choi (Jeonghwan Choi et al., Profiling, Prediction, and Capping of
Power Consumption in Consolidated Environments, PROC. IEEE MASCOTS
(2008)), Zacho (US 2010/0122810 A1; Aug. 19, 2010), and Botich
(US 2009/0281677 A1; Nov. 12, 2009).

Appeal 2017-004224
Application 13/220,613

3
ANALYSIS
First, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 4–5;
see also Reply Br. 1–4) that the combination of Choi, Zacho, and Botich
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitation “receiving one or more input parameters of the one or more
computing devices.”
The Examiner found that profiling the CPU usage of Choi, in which
an application is run on a server, corresponds to the limitation “receiving one
or more input parameters of the one or more computing devices.” (Final
Act. 9; see also Ans. 4–5.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Choi relates to the determination of power budgets (i.e., lower and
upper bounds on power consumption) for addressing energy and reliability
concerns in data centers. (P. 1, § 1.1, col. 2, para. 2.) To profile resource
usage, Choi explains that “[t]he profiling technique involves running the
application on an isolated server” (p. 3, §3.1, para. 1) and “[b]y recording
CPU scheduling/de-scheduling instants for the virtual machine running our
application, we derive its CPU usage profile, an ON-OFF time series of its
CPU usage” (id. § 3.1, col. 2, last para.). Furthermore, Choi explains that
“we develop techniques to predict the average power consumption of a
server which consolidates multiple applications” and that “[t]he inputs to
any of our prediction algorithms are the power and resource usage
distributions of the individual applications.” (P. 4, § 4.) Because Choi
explains that the application runs on a server and records CPU usage, Choi
teaches the limitation “receiving one or more input parameters of the one or
more computing devices.”
Appeal 2017-004224
Application 13/220,613

4
Appellants argue that “Choi et al. only discusses ‘individual
applications,’ . . . not the computing device itself” and “[t]he claims require
the input parameters to be ‘of the one or more computing devices’ itself.”
(App. Br. 4 (emphases omitted); see also Reply Br. 2.) Accordingly,
Appellants argue “[t]he claims do not recite a tenuous association with the
computer device: they must be of the computing device,” however, “[i]n
Choi, it is not of the device; it is of an individual application on a device.”
(Id.) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Choi explains that the application
runs on a server (i.e., the claimed “computing devices”) and that such
application records CPU usage (i.e. the claimed “input parameters”) for
CPUs associated the server. Accordingly, the limitation “receiving one or
more input parameters of the one or more computing devices” is broad
enough the compass the application of Choi, which runs on a server and
monitors associated CPU usage.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Choi,
Zacho, and Botich would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “receiving one or more input parameters of the one or
more computing devices.”
Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 6–7)
that the Examiner improperly combined Choi, Zacho, and Botich.
The Examiner found that the client report interface of Botich
corresponds to the limitation “input by a user.” (Final Act. 9.) The
Examiner concluded that “one of ordinary skill in the art could have
combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in
combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does
separately.” (Ans. 7; see also Final Act. 9.) In addition, the Examiner
Appeal 2017-004224
Application 13/220,613

5
articulated that “[t]he suggestion/motivation is to assessing and optimizing
energy use.” (Id.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
Botich relates to “network monitoring and control systems used for
the optimization of energy consumption and waste emissions.” (¶ 5.)
Figure 11 of Botich illustrates a block diagram of data center 110 and client
report interface 115. (¶ 28.) Botich explains that “[t]he client report
interface 115 is the user access device through which the user interacts with
the system 100.” (¶ 72.) In one example, Botich explains that waste water
consumption value 235 can be provided as an input by a user. (¶ 80.)
Because Botich explains that the user can input parameters to data
center 110 via client report interface 115, Botich teaches the limitation
“input by a user.”
The combination of Choi and Botich is nothing more than
incorporating the known client report interface of Botich, which permits the
user to interact with the system, with the known application of Choi, for
profiling CPU usage, to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.”). Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 7) that modifying Choi to include the client report interface
of Botich would have been obvious.
Appellants argue that “the purported motivation of the combination of
Choi et al. and Botich et al. . . . is ‘for the purpose of assessing and
optimizing energy use and environmental impact’” but “this is already a
purpose of Choi et al. and would not motivate one of ordinary skill in the art
to look further to Botich et al. for this.” (App. Br. 6 (emphases omitted).)
Appeal 2017-004224
Application 13/220,613

6
However, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning for combining Choi and
Botich was also based upon combining known elements to achieve
predictable results. Appellants’ arguments do not directly address the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning of combining known elements.
Therefore, the Examiner has properly combined Choi, Zacho, and
Botich to reject independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Third, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 7) that
the combination of Choi, Zacho, and Botich would not have rendered
obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “receiving one or
more input parameters of the one or more computing devices, input by a
user.”
The Examiner found that profiling the CPU usage of Choi, in which
the application is run on a server, corresponds to the limitation “receiving
one or more input parameters of the one or more computing devices” (Final
Act. 9; see also Ans. 4–5) and the Examiner found that the client report
interface of Botich corresponds to the limitation “input by a user” (Final
Act. 9). We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
As discussed previously, because Choi explains that the application
runs on the server and records CPU usage, Choi teaches the limitation
“receiving one or more input parameters of the one or more computing
devices.” Also discussed previously, because Botich explains that the user
can input parameters to data center 110 via client report interface 115,
Botich teaches the limitation “input by a user.” Accordingly, the
combination of Choi and Botich teaches the limitation “receiving one or
more input parameters of the one or more computing devices.”
Appeal 2017-004224
Application 13/220,613

7
Appellants argue that “[t]he cited portions of Zacho do not disclose
input parameters input by a user” and accordingly, “Zacho does not disclose
automatically generating a prediction of the power consumption of the one
or more computing devices over a future time interval using input
parameters input by a user.” (App. Br. 7 (emphases omitted).) However, as
discussed previously, the Examiner cited to Choi for teaching the limitation
“receiving one or more input parameters of the one or more computing
devices” and cited to Botich for teaching the limitation “input by a user.”
(Final Act. 9.) Moreover, Appellants merely provide a conclusory statement
that the Zacho does not teach the limitation “automatically generating a
prediction of the power consumption of the one or more computing devices
over a future time interval using input parameters” without providing any
persuasive arguments or evidence as to why the Examiner’s findings are
erroneous.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Choi,
Zacho, and Botich would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “receiving one or more input parameters of the one or
more computing devices, input by a user.”
Last, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 7–8)
that the combination of Choi, Zacho, and Botich would not have rendered
obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “transmitting the
generated prediction.”
The Examiner found that the transmission of performance
characteristics to the server of Botich corresponds to the limitation
“transmitting” and that the application of Choi, which predicts power
Appeal 2017-004224
Application 13/220,613

8
consumption for the server, corresponds to the limitation “generated
prediction.” (Ans. 11.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Botich explains that in one embodiment for monitoring energy
consumption or waste emissions from a facility, performance characteristics
are transmitted to a server. (See ¶¶ 12–13.) Thus, Botich teaches the
limitation “transmitting.” As discussed previously, Choi explains that “we
develop techniques to predict the average power consumption of a server
which consolidates multiple applications.” (P. 4, § 4.) Accordingly, the
combination of Choi and Botich teaches the limitation “transmitting the
generated prediction.”
Appellants argue that “Botich et al. states ‘continuously detecting
performance characteristics of each of the plurality of devices at a
predetermined sampling rate, and transmitting data representing the
performance characteristics of each of the plurality of devices to a server’”
and “[t]his is not a prediction and mentions nothing about a prediction at all,
much less transmitting a generated prediction.” (App. Br. 7–8 (emphases
omitted).) However, the Examiner also cited to Choi for teaching the
limitation “generated prediction.” (Ans. 11.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Choi,
Zacho, and Botich would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “transmitting the generated prediction.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2–14 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have
not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these
claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2–14 under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2017-004224
Application 13/220,613

9
§ 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 1.
Independent claims 15 and 29 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 29, as well as dependent claims
16–28 and 30–36, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–36 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED